Case law

Swear v. Lawson

288 F. Supp. 3d 669 · District Court, E.D. Louisiana · Jan 16, 2018

in light of clearly established *679 law. 61 Plaintiff argues, however, that Lawson and Vinson are not entitled to qualified immunity because the First Amendment right to free speech is a clearly established right and their … Legal Standard on Qualified Immunity The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials "from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional

Heriberto Rodriguez v. County of Los Angeles

891 F.3d 776 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 30, 2018

Qualified Immunity under Federal Law Qualified immunity under federal law protects government officials “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … “An officer is not entitled to qualified immunity on the grounds that the law is not clearly established every time a novel method is used to inflict injury.” Mendoza v. Block, 27 F.3d 1357, 1362 (9th Cir. 1994).

Bender v. General Services Administration

539 F. Supp. 2d 702 · District Court, S.D. New York · Mar 5, 2008

Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil liability for constitutional torts “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which *713 a reasonable person … Qualified immunity protects a defendant from suits for violations only of constitutional rights that are not "clearly established” at the time of the alleged violation. Saucier v.

Adeyemi v. Office of General Counsel for Booth Police Officers, National Security Agency

District Court, D. Maryland · Dec 20, 2021

Adeyemi has not alleged facts amounting to a violation of the Fourth Amendment or any other “clearly established” constitutional right, the booth police officers would be entitled to qualified immunity as to his claims … Vill. of Pinehurst, 810 F.3d 892, 907 (4th Cir. 2016) (“Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability for civil damages, provided that their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional

Clerkley v. Holcomb

121 F.4th 1359 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Nov 26, 2024

Our review is thus confined to qualified immunity’s two prongs: whether the facts “suffice to show a legal violation” and “whether that law was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.” Id. … The district court correctly denied him qualified immunity, so we affirm. 8 Holcomb finally argues that the district court erred by implying that a jury could decide the issue of clearly established law

Henderson Amusement, Inc. v. Good

172 F. Supp. 2d 751 · District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Nov 2, 2001

Even if this officer’s purported conduct had violated a clearly established rule of law (which no one can argue that it did), he would still be entitled to immunity if he reasonably believed his conduct was lawful. … If it is undisputed that the right allegedly violated was clearly established at the time, the defendant asserting a qualified-immunity defense may still be immune from damages for violation of that right if, under the circumstances

Knisley v. Pike County Joint Vocational School District

604 F.3d 977 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 14, 2010

The defendants may still be entitled to qualified immunity if their actions did *982 not “violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … Our Circuit’s clearly established ease law on this issue put the school and its employees on notice that this search was unconstitutional, so defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity protection.

Stanley v. Cooper

996 F. Supp. 316 · District Court, S.D. New York · Mar 10, 1998

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY The doctrine of qualified immunity entitles public officers to be shielded from liability for damages unless their conduct violates clearly established constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … But such actions did not so clearly violate Stanley’s rights that defendant Cooper should be deprived of the defense of qualified immunity.

Lamb v. City of Decatur

947 F. Supp. 1261 · District Court, C.D. Illinois · Nov 19, 1996

“It is the plaintiff who bears the burden of establishing the existence of the allegedly clearly established constitutional right.” Rice v. Burks, 999 F.2d 1172, 1174 (7th Cir.1993). … The Decatur police do not qualify for immunity.

Kissner v. Orr

District Court, E.D. Michigan · Nov 17, 2022

The Court, however, did not dismiss Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants Orr or Rogers based on qualified immunity. … See Harlow, 457 U.S. at 818-19 (“If the law at that time was not clearly established, an official could not reasonably be expected to anticipate subsequent legal developments, nor could he fairly be said to “know” that

Nguyen v. Louisiana State Board of Cosmetology

236 F. Supp. 3d 947 · District Court, M.D. Louisiana · Feb 20, 2017

Qualified Immunity “The doctrine of qualified immunity'protects government officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … Qualified Immunity on Plaintiffs’ Race Discrimination Claims The right to be free from invidious racial discrimination is clearly established. See, e.g., Strauder v. West Virginia, 100 U.S. 303 , 25 L.Ed. 664 (1880).

William C. Bennett, AKA John A. Richardson v. Garrison A. Parker, Warden, Robert M. Jackson, Officer, Daniel W. Cooper, Officer

898 F.2d 1530 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Apr 25, 1990

Although intertwined with issues of jurisdiction and qualified immunity, this appeal concerns the severity of injury to an inmate required to establish a constitutional claim of excessive use of force. … The doctrine of qualified immunity accomplishes a similar purpose by shielding public officials from civil liability when their conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable

Better Government Bureau, Inc. v. McGraw

106 F.3d 582 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Feb 6, 1997

We hold, therefore, that an official who performs an act clearly established to be beyond the scope of his discretionary authority is not entitled to claim qualified immunity under § 1983. … established for qualified immunity purposes.”

Ellis v. City of Indianapolis

800 F. Supp. 733 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Jul 24, 1992

clearly established. … Qualified Immunity Defense Applies to Wynalda’s Conduct The question whether qualified immunity attaches to an officer’s conduct is always one for the judge to decide. Simkunas v.

Ciampi v. City of Palo Alto

790 F. Supp. 2d 1077 · District Court, N.D. California · May 11, 2011

Qualified Immunity Doctrine The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … The immunity inquiry, on the other hand, asks whether the right Plaintiff claims was clearly established. Id.

Allah v. Juchenwioz

176 F. App'x 187 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Apr 12, 2006

which the Court found to exist in its 1999 decision was not clearly established at the relevant time.” … “In general, public officials are entitled to qualified immunity if (1) their conduct does not violate clearly established constitutional rights, or (2) it was objectively reasonable for them to believe their acts did not

Anderson v. City of Bellevue

862 F. Supp. 2d 1095 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Mar 23, 2012

Qualified Immunity The “doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … was clearly established at the time of the violation.

Johnson v. Johnson

385 F.3d 503 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 8, 2004

Moreover, they would be entitled to qualified immunity unless clearly established law showed that their response was insufficient. … If Johnson has indeed failed to allege a violation, then of course there can be no violation of clearly established law that would overcome qualified immunity. See Siegert, 500 U.S. at 232 , 111 S.Ct. 1789 .

Advisory Opinion to the Attorney General Re: Use of Marijuana for Certain Medical Conditions

132 So. 3d 786 · Supreme Court of Florida · Jan 27, 2014

We also conclude that the ballot title and summary comply with section 101.161(1) because they are not clearly and conclusively defective. … This limited immunity is necessary because, in the absence of such immunity, the mere act of prescribing marijuana, a controlled substance under Florida law, would result in civil or criminal liability or sanctions, which

Searles v. Van Bebber

993 F. Supp. 1350 · District Court, D. Kansas · Jan 7, 1998

Defendants also claim that they are entitled to qualified immunity, which shields them from liability unless they violated clearly established constitutional or statutory norms. Anderson v. … Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity if their conduct was objectively reasonable in the light of clearly established law and the information which the possessed at the time of the alleged violation. Martin v.